Trump slams Hillary at Alfred E. Smith Dinner
After the third debate, much ado was being made about Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton being seated close to each other at the Alfred E. Smith dinner, separated only by a holy man and a gulf of political differences.
It seems that the the seating arrangement may have been a good idea.
Reporters covering the white-tie affair, which is an election year tradition, noted the lack of interaction between the pair of presidential candidates on Twitter about 15 minutes before the event began. At around 7:45 p.m., many correspondents said Clinton and Trump had not acknowledged each other or spoken since the start of the seating process. Trump and Clinton are separated only by Cardinal Timothy Dolan, the Archbishop of New York.
However, as the dinner went on, at least two photos surfaced on Twitter that appear to show both Trump and Clinton leaning in and having a conversation with Dolan.
Typically, each candidate gives a speech during this Catholic charity dinner that is rich with humor and self-deprecating remarks. However, as Trump is the Master of the Unexpected, his speech took a sharp turn to target Hillary Clinton forcefully.
Here is the video (skip to 1:20:20 for the beginning of his presentation).
Some of his pointed remarks:
- Hillary is so corrupt, she got kicked off the Watergate Commission.
- What’s her pitch?…The economy is busted. The government is corrupt. Washington is failing. I’ve been working on your behalf for 30 years. I can fix it.
- [In reference to the Wikileaks releases] Hillary feels it is vital to deceive the people by having one public policy and a totally different policy in private.
- She’s in public, pretending not to hate Catholics.
- She already knows the jokes because they were given to her in advance by Donna Brazile.
Per tradition, he ended his remarks with something positive about his opponent. He wryly noted, “Hillary has forgotten more things that most people ever know.”
Frankly, I was cheering so loud, I might have been heard at the luxurious Waldorf Astoria Hotel all the way from San Diego. Trump went into an arena filled with elite politicians, media representatives, and celebrities and directly offered them realities about the woman most there support.
I do not know how many “average” Americans watch, but I suspect that the clip of him being booed will be making the media rounds tomorrow. However, if journalists believe that Trump upsetting ultra-wealthy celebrities will unsettle many average American voters, they will be in for an exceedingly rude shock.
Bonus: Trump managed to get key Wikileaks findings about Clinton out in a way that will ensure the material will actually be covered and spread through social media.
At this stage in the election, I am tired of seeing Clinton’s smug smile after her deceitful partnering with the Democratic National Committee to undermine Bernie Sanders in the primary, after her team incited violence at rallies that included some I attended, and after she colluded with the press to promote her campaign unfairly.
Sitting there comfortably after all we know about her, her husband, and their furniture-stealing history, I was delighted to see Trump make her feel small and uncomfortable in that chic setting.
At this point, what difference does it make?
We will see November 8th.
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Only slightly off topic:
The Clintons have had a stunning impact on American society:
First, President Bill Clinton convinced Americans that oral sex is not sex, with unsurprising yet profound sequela;
Second, wannabe president Hillary Clinton demonstrates that lying and cheating, for an entire lifetime, is just fine, so long as the liar and cheater wins. Indeed, such a liar and cheater may become president. Youngsters are learning another perverted lesson.
Our society seems doomed.
This was a clusterfark waiting to happen. As Allahpundit asked, “What could go wrong?” Trump has outsized feet of clay, among other deficits. But is there another human being who has actually demanded an accounting from these creeps?
Trump comes along and fulfills the Left’s long lip-serviced desire of speaking “truth to power”.
And they hate him for it.
The first time Trump speaks truth to anyone, it will truly be news breaking.
It’s not hate. They find him despicable.
Sure, sure, ORDA, they find him “despicable.”
But with the left, there is no genuine revulsion about anything, merely sentiments that either advance or retard the agenda. Serial rapist Bill Clinton? Not despicable. Jew-baiting, riot inciting, Tawana Brawley-brawling Al Sharpton? Not despicable. How about BLM, the patron saint of cop killers? Not despicable. In fact, let’s celebrate them by inviting to the Democratic Convention the mothers of men killed by cops, even when ruled justifiable homicide.
And then there’s the career criminal HRC, the serial liar, who, through either subservient or self-interested policy, did her bit for chaos in Syria with all its attendant death and displacement, and then, almost single-handedly, promoted US involvement in a war in Libya with similar results. And Benghazi? Really, not despicable, especially the part about looking widows and orphans in the eye and blaming it on a video.
As far as I can tell, the loudmouthed, vulgarian billionaire, the combover man with this thick fingers and wild lies and exaggerations does seem to have one moral advantage–he’s never murdered anyone, or been responsible for policies that have murdered hundreds of thousands.
I will give you Sharpton. Every family has a nasty uncle. Unfortunately, yours is running for President.
I am impressed with your ability to regurgitate right-wing talking points. I am sure you can keep it up for the next 4 years; and that you will.
ORDA, let me see if I understand your response.
You agree that Al Sharpton merits inclusion on my list because, well, you agree. The rest of my examples are right-wing “talking points” because, uh, you disagree with their inclusion; moreover, in the ORDA left/right binary all factoids with which you agree are those with which you agree while all those with which you disagree are right-wing talking points, as opposed to their inclusion being erroneous for some other reason, say, due to inaccuracies, incompleteness or debatable for some other reason.
This is why I love posting. It’s the only place where I can buy tautologies by the yard,
Wow! Two post replies. What’s CTR paying per post – $2.50?
As an ex-Catholic, it was epic to see these hypocritical socialites squirm in their seats as Donald hit them with one truth bomb after another. It reminded me of one of my favorite passages in the Bible where Jesus stormed through the temple overturning the money tables and driving out the riff-raff with a whip.
Just remember that act was a direct cause of his death.
Actually – when Pilate asked Jesus – “Are you the King of the Jews?”
Jesus replied with the sacred Hebrew name of God the Great – I AM. That sealed his fate. He did not say he was the King of the Jews. He said I AM. I am God.
After that, the Temple priests could not allow him to live.
Yes, Trump & Jesus arm in arm. Didn’t Trump use his foundation to pay for a statue of that?
You missed the two biggest things. Aside from the two main boobs speaking were Maria Bartellomo’s boobs.
There was much said about them last night and I think they might have been trending during the speaches because she picks up her phone and reads something, then suddenly starts tugging at her dress straps and holding her hands in front of her chest.
You also missed the best line, which was that when Hillary passed Trump she said “pardon me”.
I also realized something about Hillary she laughs the hardest when she is pretending not to be upset.
Bonus: Trump managed to get key Wikileaks findings about Clinton out
Bonus? Perhaps, but I suspect more likely the entire point of this otherwise frivolous ritual.
Trump is willing and able to walk into a lion’s den, seize the Bully Pulpit and announce that the emperor has no clothes. We get a lot of people who claim they’ll do such a thing, but they very rarely deliver.
Hah. And some unperceptive types still insist that Trump is an undisciplined, out-of-control baboon.
Well, it’s not like he said anything about Hillary that was inaccurate.
Just a thought – if enough unperceptive types still insist that Trump is an undisciplined, out-of-control baboon, he will lose.
Well, you will have the satisfaction of thinking you are superior. But that won’t even buy you a ticket to one of his rip-off seminars.
Go away, Democrat troll.
Yes, you are absolutely right. You are entitled to your hermetically sealed bubble. You should never be troubled by anything outside your restricted world.
So, do you have a quota? Are you paid by the post or by the word?
Or, did you just not qualify for the job where you actually go to the Trump rally and pick a fight? Too mentally ill for bird dogging?
ORDA, the rest of BOOGS’ “right wing talking points” just happen to be true. Left wingers like you just refuse to accept it even when there is evidence that proves it. Have you read any of the wiki leaks emails or FBI documents or is this simply right wing propaganda and Russian interference in our election process?
Trump must’ve gotten access to nuclear codes, because I haven’t ever seen anyone bomb quite as much before.
This performance was an embarrassment to anyone who still has enough sense to be embarrassed (apparently not Leslie)
Fwiffo, you just can’t wait for the Clinton administration, can you? Clinton is never embarrassed no matter what lies and deceits she is caught in. She’s just so much smarter than the rest of us.
Let me give you a hint. This thread is about candidates at charity dinner. My comment is about candidates at charity dinner. Your comment is about demonstrating your pathetically lame understanding of what the subject is.
Notice which one is different?
fwiffo, you’re correct. My mistake on the comment. I will say that bombing with the Manhattan elite doesn’t worry me so much. They’re all in for Hillary anyway, just like the media.
Trump’s verbal slams feel good to listeners, based on his targets and even if listeners aren’t supporters, but it won’t win him the large percentage of independent votes he’ll need to win.
I don’t trust polls whatsoever because of this: after every election, one or two polls are revealed as having been accurate, while the rest were wrong. People cite those one or two correct pollsters in the next cycle (“Pollster X got 2012 exactly right!”). But here’s the problem, one of simple logic: that a given pollster was accurate in a previous cycle is not evidence that the pollster knew what it was doing. Every cycle the polls are all over the road. Currently, polls have it anywhere from a 12 pt Clinton lead to a 2 pt Trump lead, a 14 pt swing among dozens of polls, all of whom are ostensibly measuring the same thing. It’s like dozens of psychics making every possible prediction knowing that *somebody* is going to be right when it’s all over. Same with polls – there are so many that at least one of them will be accurate. But… is it because that pollster knows what they’re doing or were they just lucky, the blind squirrel stumbling over a nut (or two nuts in this cycle) or the dead clock that’s still accurate twice a day? What good is a poll that can only be measured for accuracy AFTER an election?
There is also the dynamic – identical to how psychics operate – of supporters of a given candidate citing a given pollster who has their candidate ahead currently, to be believed because that pollster was accurate in 2012, or the 2010 or 2014 midterms, whatever. Never mentioned or counted into the equation is how often that pollster was dead wrong. That’s the connection to psychics – they too cite the wins and ignore the losses. Glenn Beck, who makes predictions on a daily basis, also plays that game – he’ll loudly and proudly tell you when one of his predictions comes true, but never mentions the 99% that were wrong.
Unable to believe that pollsters are somehow the only players left in the whole election industry who are honest and uncorrupted, I look for other metrics to try and gauge where a race is, and where it may be heading. Campaign behavior indicates both the Clinton and Trump camps believe it is too close to get cocky about it. One can, I suppose, make a case for a Trump landslide, a Clinton landslide, or a very close squeaker, but if I had to call it today, I’d predict a Clinton victory that’s much closer than expected. This is another way of saying I can see Trump winning if he closes a 2-4 pt gap by November 8th. Turnout will decide. High turnout – Trump wins. Low turnout – Clinton wins. Now we’ll see if some retired schmuck out of NC can do as well as all these professional pollsters. I am just as eligible for blind luck, after all.
Bummer: I had every intention of writing in William A. Jacobson for president, was even going to take a pic of my ballot and send it in, but write-ins not allowed in NC unless the candidate has jumped thru some administrative hoops by a certain deadline. I know who I won’t be voting for, but not who I will. I refuse the ‘colonoscopy or root canal / gas chamber or electric chair?’ choice.
Last week on WJR radio in Detroit Frank Beckman had Frank Coombs of Rasmussen on his show after the second debate.
Coombs says the polling industry is in flux with the death of the landline and it’s becoming harder and harder for pollsters to do their job.
He said they’re using online polling companies who use anonymous panels. He also mentioned the polling firms didn’t do too well during the primaries.
You can find his podcast if you want to hear about it.
Thx. Coincidentally, I’m a Detroit native, exiled to NC.
Henry Hawkins: Currently, polls have it anywhere from a 12 pt Clinton lead to a 2 pt Trump lead, a 14 pt swing among dozens of polls
Polls typically have a margin of error 4-5%, depending on sample size, so we would expect polls to vary somewhat around the actual value. Aggregating multiple polls reduces the margin of error. Assuming an even spread of polls between +12 to -2, the mean would be +5.
I am dubious that averaging out errant polls necessarily leads to the most accurate measure. Highly illogical, Captain.
Henry Hawkins: I am dubious that averaging out errant polls necessarily leads to the most accurate measure.
In fact, averaging out samples does reduce errors due to statistical sampling, increasing precision. Whether they are accurate depends on whether the samples are representative. However, your claim depended on the observed variation between polls, which is not only possible, but expected.
Personally I thought it was hilarious to watch him drop a deuce in their punchbowl. What a bunch of hubristic assholes.
The media, of course, is ignoring everything Trump said. Their spin is that this proves Trump is a buffoon who can’t be let anywhere near the White House, and they’re pushing that meme hard.